Mom and boy don't want him to have chemo due to their religious beliefs. Without chemo, he will likely die soon. The boy is an elder (at 13?) and medicine man in his church. He has a learning disorder and cannot read. The family/church are into natural healing.

I don't agree with it, but the parent has every right to accept or deny treatment for their child if they so choose. Just because its something that I don't agree with...that isn't reason enough to arrest her, especially if it is because of their "religious beliefs" (no matter how wacky those may be).

Can the state step in...they shouldn't be able to, will they step in...most likely.

Can they parent choose death for their child by refusing treatment...yes, should they let him die, no.

__________________
Click HERE to access older OS versions for 8700 and 8320 devices that I have saved

I think the government needs to keep their noses out of it. This is a personal family situation, not a legal situation. While there have been many, many advances in treating cancer, can the doctors say, with 100% certainty, that the boy would be cured? No. Just because there is medicine that can treat it, doesn't mean it MUST be used.

At the same time, as a mother of 2 kids, I would do everything in my power to get care and treatment for my kids, so part of me really wonders how any other parent would not do everything they could for theirs.

But maybe, in their eyes, what they are doing (or not doing) is everyting they feel can be done.

__________________No longer a BES Admin, but it was fun while it lasted!

I agree that the govt. need to stay out but the fact that its a minor is where it gets tricky. Where the line where a parent can be incompetent to care for the child. Religion can provide people with delusions and there are tons of cases where parents do what they feel is right and justify it through their beliefs. To them it is right but to everyone else it looks like they are mistreating the child.

To me this is a form of suicide and the govt. should stay out of it.

__________________
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." - unknown

Does the state have the right to order the boy to have chemo against his family's religious beliefs?

Absolutely not. And the absence of a law to that effect is our answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daphne

Does the family have the right to let him die from lack of medical treatment?

This is about civil liberties to me. I agree with test. It's a form of (unassisted) suicide, and whether you agree with the family's beliefs or not: if someone doesn't want to be pumped full of drugs that will likely cause them pain and agony, what right have we to insist upon it? What is "end game" in this situation? Is it life itself, or a good life as defined by the one who must live it?

This is a difficult one because the cancer is probably the most easily treated of all of the cancers that are out there, so the odds of success are very great. At the same time, however, I do consider this government interference.

Bottom line: Allow the parental stupidity to be a form of chlorine being poured by themselves into the gene pool. Idiot parents.

The situation itself... is a bit odd... granted I'm not in that situation, but one would think you would want to have much as possible with your own son, chemo has been known to add years to people's lives..

Of course I do not know the exact details on this... I'll just throw my thought's out there.

__________________
8830 -> 8330 -> 9550 -> 9650
Just think about how far BlackBerries have come from then till now... And what else is coming.

there are a few religions that feel that using modern medicine is in someway damning that person to hell. not sure if this is one but these groups do exist. If the parent and child do truly believe this then to them which is worse -to pass away from cancer or eternal damnation?

__________________
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." - unknown

This is a hard one for me. I can see both sides. I don't like the idea of the government interferring with family rights, but when a child has been abused and neglected, the child protective agencies step in, and rightfully so. This kid is 13. First I read he had a learning disability and could not read, then I read he's been homeschooled and can't read. So it's not clear why he can't read really. He's been brainwashed -- likely has not had an opportunity to learn for himself about cancer, cancer treatments, risks, possible outcomes of chemo vs. not having chemo. When he says he doesn't want chemo, he is parroting what his mother has told him. A typical 13 year old would have some knowledge and reasoning to make a somewhat more informed decision than this boy, I think. I know kids younger than 13 who can research subjects on the internet very well.

The leader of this so called church they belong to sounds like a questionable character. Remember Jim Jones? And there was Heaven's Gate and David Koresh. If a parent attempted to lead their child to suicide because of a Jim Jones like character, should the government get involved? Where is the line? Brainwashing this kid, not giving him the opportunity to learn for himself, and denying him medical treatment is leading him in a direction similar to suicide. I'm not sure there is a one size fits all answer to a situation like this.

The parents have every right to make the choice. If the doctor told me that my child had more than a 80% chance to live cancer free I would do it. But if its fifty fifty then I am not going to subject my child to harsh treatment for just a few years of non life even though they are alive.

Every person I have ever known that has had cancer died from it. Even if they had years of showing cancer free. Its never completely gone.

The survival rate for Hodgkin's lymphoma is typically better than 90% if caught during the early stages of the disease. Even in later stage detection -- which there is some evidence that this case might be later stage -- survival rate is very high, with studies suggesting rates approaching 90% under these conditions.

Bottom line: This is one of the most curable cancers that is out there.

The cancer is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment. With his parents, he opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

is it in the parents decision to withhold treatment?

the thing that brings this to light is most people would do anything to save their kids.

don't we classify what she is doing as an abusive parent? prevent treatment?

Track the mother and son down. Arrest her, throw her in jail. Treat the boy for the very treatable cancer he has. I'm sorry, he is the innocent one. The mother, in this case, is just stupid. And delusional. He shouldn't have to pay with his life for her stupidity.

__________________Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. CD

The survival rate for Hodgkin's lymphoma is typically better than 90% if caught during the early stages of the disease. Even in later stage detection -- which there is some evidence that this case might be later stage -- survival rate is very high, with studies suggesting rates approaching 90% under these conditions.

Bottom line: This is one of the most curable cancers that is out there.

[...] Government has ZERO right here to interfere. Or any family matter

So the government should not intervene if a father is sexually abusing his daughter? That's a family matter. The government should not remove a child from a home where the parents are giving him drugs? Not long ago a baby died in in California because the mother somehow gave her a lethal dose of meth. The government should not prosecute the mother?